Connect: It's impossible to know. Perhaps there was a plot to blow up 10 planes over England, the Atlantic or the United States using everyday items. After September 11th, 2001 and last year's suicide bombings in London, practically anything seems possible. The alleged plot, however, was announced at a time when death from the skies was happening in Lebanon and Iraq.
That may be a mere coincidence or it could be another Jo Moore moment. She was the Labour spin doctor who reckoned September 11th, 2001 was an ideal day for 10 Downing Street to release bad news. Because the media would naturally become obsessed by the attacks on the US, any bad news rushed out at home, she reckoned, would be buried.
The announcement of the alleged plot certainly knocked Lebanon off the newspapers' front pages and from the top of the running orders of TV and radio news bulletins. However, the biggest problem in accepting the details of the alleged plot is the record of the British and American governments in announcing such scares. It might be true or it might be nonsense.
Remember the anthrax and ricin lunacies; the alleged plot to blow up the Golden Gate Bridge; the shooting dead of Jean Charles de Menezes in south London; the wounding in June of Mohammed Abdul Kahar in east London; this week's transatlantic flight escorted to Boston by fighter jets. All generated fear, but many among the public remain sceptical about these and other incidents.
In fairness, governments have a duty to alert the public to possible threats. Still, it is difficult not to consider that public trust has been violated, at least occasionally. That's the problem with lies. When one - and a major one at that - is discovered, it's more awkward to believe the perpetrators are now telling the truth. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
It's worth repeating, that: there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That doesn't, of course, mean that there wasn't a plot to blow up transatlantic planes. Indeed, it could arguably give credence to the notion of such a plot because the revenge motive of dissident Muslims will have been boosted. But George Bush, Tony Blair and the rest of the cabal insisted there were lethal weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Thus faith in official sources is undermined more than ever. Spin, PR and, as the euphemism has it, "being economical with the truth" are accepted as part of political power.
That may be unfortunate, but it is arguably inevitable; we are only people, after all. Yet blatant, flagrant, deliberate lying constitutes a weapon of mass destruction guaranteed to annihilate us from within. This represents a great problem for public consciousness, because so much of it is formed by the media.
But when official sources - the lifeblood of journalism told in the institutional voices of great outlets - tell blatant lies, what do you do?
It's nothing new, of course, that the media has been used as a conduit for official lies. It's always happened - particularly during wars - but is the current "war on terror" a war at all? There is, undeniably, international terrorism, but most of it appears to be emanating from Washington and London.
Few people in the secular West can possibly wish to live under Islamic Sharia law. There is no reason we should, but when our political leaders repeatedly tell lies - not mere spin-doctored yarns designed to show the teller in a flattering light, but blatant lies - we leave ourselves rife for exploitation. Trust between the governed and the governing frays and ultimately snaps.
That is the great problem with the alleged recent terror plot to blow up transatlantic planes.
We have been told so many "official" lies that scepticism is inevitable. Remember that disclosure of the plot came a day after John Reid, the British home secretary, had said Britain faced "probably the most sustained period of severe threat since the end of the second World War".
If it does (and who can know?) he can blame his party leader, the rest of the "pro-George Bush" Labour party and the Tories. It's clear that Blair backed the wrong side in attacking Iraq. A neutral stance would have suited him and his country better. He will never admit it, of course, but the suspicion must be that - at least on some level - he knows it. So now, air travel is more difficult than ever.
In future, it could become like undergoing a medical operation - no clothes and just one of those ridiculous open-down-the-back garments for all passengers and (in the spirit of the democracy for which the "war on terror" is allegedly being waged) for all crew too. It could put the, er, "romance" back into an industry that treats people like cattle.
"Delays," said Reid on Wednesday, "are more acceptable than death." This is undoubtedly true, although he never made such an observation while Lebanese, Iraqi and Afghani civilians were being slaughtered.
Was there a plot to blow up transatlantic planes? Perhaps. It would be good to have other than "official" confirmation, however. Otherwise, it's impossible to know.